Semi-retired mathematician (numerical analysis, applied math, linear algebra, statistics, etc.) I like woodworking, especially wood turning. I enjoy writing up bridge hands, which I find can improve my own play, by forcing me to think about what is happening at the table.

N-S are playing precision, but are a new partnership, perhaps the first time together. South was given a set of notes outlining the agreements they will be using, but based on their conversation and South's mannerisms has not fully read them.

West

♠

5432

♥

Q4

♦

K87643

♣

9

North

♠

QJ6

♥

AK

♦

AQ105

♣

KQ107

East

♠

87

♥

J9632

♦

J

♣

85432

South

♠

AK109

♥

10875

♦

92

♣

AJ6

W

N

E

S

1♣

1♥

X

P

3N

P

4N

P

5♥

P

5N

P

6♥

P

6N

?

D

1♣ (alerted) precision

1♥ (alerted) hearts and clubs OR spades and diamonds

X (alerted) 5-7 HCP, any shape

South tanked for a while before bidding 4NT.

North's responses to 4NT and 5NT were apparently Blackwood responses.

After the bidding, it became clear that South did not know that X was described in the notes as 5-7 HCP. North affirmed that it was in the notes.

E-W made the argument that once South hears double explained as 5-7, then North Jumps to 3NT, South knows North does not have a balanced 16 count, but more likely 20+ HCP, a hand willing to try 3NT opposite a random 5-7 point hand. This seemingly makes slam quite likely in the eyes of South.

However, South is allowed to misbid. South claimed that he had doubled, unsure of the range implied, but planning on always bidding game. Does the jump to 3NT wake South up to the slam possibilities anyway, regardless of any UI from the alert?

I can see arguments for either view. Suppose South knew the implied range for X, yet chose to double anyway, giving North an opportunity to show his values?

The director rolled it back to 3NT, scoring 13 tricks.

Would you...

Allow 6NT, making 13 tricks

Roll it back into game, making 13 tricks

Allow West to shoot East, as anyone willing to bid like that should be put out if his misery

This contains content that a reasonable person would consider offensive, abusive, or hate speech.

Spam

This is effectively an advertisement with no disclosure. It is not useful or relevant to the current conversation.

Other (additional description required)

This requires general moderator attention based on the Community Guidelines, Terms of Service, or for another reason not listed above.

Select a reason and click "Flag Post" to flag this for review. You may provide an optional (required if choosing other) description of why you find this objectionable. You may also wish to send a private message to to request him or her to edit or remove the .